Evaluations and Outcomes Assessment

Evaluation Process

Feedback and evaluation is ongoing and provides information regarding aspects of performance, knowledge and understanding. The program expects there is a spirit of openness, continuous learning and self-reflection. 

Clinical Rotations

At the end of each clinical rotation, the fellow will be evaluated electronically by transplant faculty. staff physician or laboratory/research supervisor should include an assessment of all standard training competencies (knowledge, practice based learning, professionalism, ethics, and systems development) as related to Transplant ID.

Optimally, multi-source feedback on inter-professional, collaborator, and communication skills should be sought from transplant ID staff as well as all members of the multi-disciplinary transplant team.

Knowledge and knowledge application should be assessed at or before the midpoint of training, using oral or written examinations, including a series of short-answer questions available on the AST website.

Feedback should be sought from the fellow on the transplant ID training program, transplant ID staff, and advisors.

Feedback to Fellows

Faculty will observe, evaluate and frequently provide feedback on fellow performance during each rotation or similar educational assignment.   Feedback is provided to the fellow after each clinical rotation by the inpatient attending(s), in person and via New-Innovations and semiannually by the program director (in person), faculty mentor (in person and via New-Innovations), and continuity clinic attending(s) (in person and via New-Innovations).

The fellow will receive feedback from faculty members after each of their Clinical Conference presentations.

The fellow will receive feedback from the Scholarship Oversight Committee with each meeting, both in person and in a written summary prepared by the committee chair.

UMP Coding will meet with the fellow to review coding one week before General ID rotation and then at the end of the rotation. Please contact Jackie Daigle at jdaigle@umphysicians.umn.edu for these meetings. 

The fellow will receive formal evaluation semi-annually by the program director and documentation is shared at this time.

New-Innovations/Residency Management Suite (RMS)

The University of Minnesota Medical School is part of a consortium of metro-area teaching health systems that use New-Innovations for GME. As part of an incoming fellow’s onboarding process, they will be required to use various checklists to meet institutional and participating site requirements. New-Innovations also serves as a repository and “source of truth” for each fellow’s training record. The fellow will receive New-Innovations training during their orientation. Question regarding New-Innovations can be addressed to the program coordinator or email rmshelp@umn.edu. 

Qualtrics

The University of Minnesota uses Qualtrics for an number of evaluations. At times, the fellow will be asked to complete surveys and evaluations, generated by the GME Office and the program. 

Evaluations of Faculty and Educational Assignments

Timely and informative evaluations of faculty and rotations are an important component of gaging the success of the program and targeting areas of improvement. The fellow is required to complete any open evaluation in New-Innovations on rotations and continuity clinic. The fellow is also sent email links to evaluate didactic sessions at the University (weekly ID Intercity Clinical Case Conference and Tuesday morning Didactic lectures). At the end of each clinical rotation, the fellow is also asked to log into a GME-sponsored Qualtrics site: "Trainee Evaluation of Individual Faculty" and evaluate a minimum of three faculty listed at the training site. Providing feedback to faculty also helps build a repository of documentation that is used when an individual faculty member goes up for promotion. 

Scholarship Oversite Committee (SOC)

The Transplant Infectious Diseases Fellowship Program has instituted a Scholarship Oversight Committee (SOC) to provide consistent, systematic, and centralized oversight of the fellow's academic progress. The specific goals of the SOC are as follows:

• to document for the program the fellow's academic progress, including any need for redirection or

enhancement

• to provide an outside perspective for the fellow and mentor regarding the fellow's academic progress

• to provide additional guidance to the fellow and mentor regarding desirable or necessary future professional development efforts

• to identify any problematic aspects of the fellow-mentor relationship, and to report these to relevant parties to improve faculty cohesiveness and communication

The SOC membership includes: 

• Current research mentor(s) of the fellow who has/have played a roll in research with the program

• Faculty who are supportive of research in the Department and

• the program director (SOC chair)

The SOC meets formally on a semiannual basis to review each trainee's progress. The fellow will submit written materials in advance of the semiannual SOC meetings, according to a structured outline. They then will appear before the committee individually (30-45 min.) to present their report in person and to answer questions from committee members. Immediate feedback to the fellow is provided after this discussion; a written report is then generated and provided to the fellow and becomes part of the training record.

Semi-annual Reviews

The fellow will meet formally on a semi-annual basis with the program director to review their progress in the program, discuss goals and any issues that may arise. This meeting will be documented and become part of the permanent record of the fellow and follows the Trainee Formative and Summative Evaluation as specified in the GME Evaluation Policy.

Annual Evaluation of Program 

The program follows the GME Evaluation Policy for Program Evaluation.